Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional committee: Physics and chemistry

He does not complete the standard form but encloses a typescript report in which he states he finds it unusually difficult to give an unbiased report on the paper. It is so connected with Dr Barnes' paper that it is extremely difficult to disentangle them, more especially as Callendar's paper contains constant references to [Howard Turner] Barnes' paper, and Barnes' paper is not in Griffiths' possession, though he read it with great interest when originally submitted to him. Thinks the author should carefully re-consider his introduction to avoid the impression that some kind of difficulty had arisen between himself and Barnes. It would have been far better if originally the contents of Callendar and Barnes' papers could have been incorporated into one, but they must make the best of the circumstances as they stand, and he sees no alternative but their separate publication. They should certainly appear alongside each other in the Philosophical Transactions as constant references from one to the other will be necessary. Thinks separate numbers should be used for the two papers and Callendar's paper should come first. Regards Barnes' paper as the most valuable contribution to this portion of physics which has been published in recent years. With regards to the diagrams the only one which might possibly be dispensed with is figure two, the 'Compensating Resistance Box', and this only if it makes a marked difference in the expense. There are several minor matters on which his opinions differs slightly from the conclusions arrived at by Callendar, but he does not think it necessary to dwell on these as they are mostly matters of personal opinion.

[Published in Philosophical Transactions A, 1902].

Endorsed on verso as received 7 January 1902.

Reference number
RR/15/163
Earliest possible date
04 January 1902
Physical description
Standardised form (type A) and report on paper
Page extent
4 pages
Format
Typescript
Manuscript

Creator name

Ernest Howard Griffiths

View page for Ernest Howard Griffiths

Use this record

Citation

Ernest Howard Griffiths, Referee's report by Ernest Howard Griffiths, on a paper 'Continuous electrical calorimetry' by Hugh Longbourne Callendar, 04 January 1902, RR/15/163, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_15_163/referees-report-by-ernest-howard-griffiths-on-a-paper-continuous-electrical-calorimetry-by-hugh-longbourne-callendar, accessed on 02 December 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_15_163/referees-report-by-ernest-howard-griffiths-on-a-paper-continuous-electrical-calorimetry-by-hugh-longbourne-callendar" title="Referee's report by Ernest Howard Griffiths, on a paper 'Continuous electrical calorimetry' by Hugh Longbourne Callendar" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Publications

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1954

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection